National Politics Vs. Education

You may not read anything from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, that right-tilted, Common Core pushing, privatization-loving thinky tank, but I'm going to direct your attention there for a moment and a piece by Dale Chu. Chu and I disagree on a great deal, but in this recent piece, while talking about Rick Scott's crazy-pants (my word) plan to save America, he makes some worthwhile points, starting with this one:

What we have today is a smash-and-grab version of education reform that features a maximalist approach to securing legislative victories. The ethos seems to be: Throw the current bums out of office and get as much as we can until we eventually get tossed to the curb ourselves. Lather, rinse, repeat. Neither side has a common-ground agenda. Each tries to burn the other down. All of the incentives are organized around fealty to the “national brand,” which in the case of Scott and his role as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee is to use an uncharacteristically inflammatory and hardline rhetoric when it comes to talking about schools.

I could quibble. I am not sure, for instance, that Democrats have an education agenda at all, having spent a couple of decades simply adapting the conservative reform agenda and now lacking any sense of how to find their way back. But the larger point is a good one--blast into power, grab what you can without any concern about whether or not it's sustainable, and gather up the political spoils while you can. It's an apt description of the politically-driven CRT panic, which contains 0% "Let's find a good and universally acceptable way to talk about our difficult history with race" and 100% "Vote for me because I helped chase away that scary Black People Stuff from the evil indoctrinatin' schools." 

Building education policy for the long run matters, because the long run is what teachers and schools are here for. Every teacher who's been in a classroom for more than five years has mastered the New Policy Eyeroll--some administrator breezes in and brandishes a shiny new game-changing program, and teachers deploy the eye roll because they know with a year or three, both the administrator and the policy will be gone, shoved aside by the newest shiny thing.

Remember when you were learning to drive? You learned that if you focused on the road a few feet in front of the car, you'd wander all over the pavement. To keep the car steady and the journey safe, you focused far ahead on your destination. That's what teachers have to learn to do.

Schools and teachers have to play a long game; when politicians start playing a short game, a smash and grab game, that works directly against the health of schools and education. But as Chu points out

...neither national Republicans nor national Democrats seem to show any interest in being a majority party when it comes to getting our kids back on track. Instead, both sides have cynically employed conflict engineers to dictate the strength and direction of our education fights, resulting in today’s zero-sum playing field.

Chu thinks the answer is in state and local leadership. Well, maybe. He's looking at ways to forward the reformster cause, and I suppose a state like Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis and his administration have just about finished burning public education to the ground, looks like a fine example. It looks to me as if smash-and-grab politics are fully installed in many state capitals which are, in fact, where the CRT panic is playing out. Meanwhile, the GOP has been working hard to install that same philosophy on the local school board level. 

Chu thinks the "silent majority" should speak up about "the need for schools to focus their limited bandwidth on education recovery," but that ship has sailed in many communities, where Moms for Liberty, Parents Defending Education, and a host of other conservative astro-turf groups have screamed their way to the front of the conversation; in some cases, the silent majority has been chased right off the board.

Chu wants to see intra-party coalitions motivated by the "calamity" of low test scores for BlPOC students, but I'm not sure low scores on the Big Standardized Test is anybody's idea of a Top Ten crisis in education. And the intra-party coalition was largely the result of Democrats embracing a version of the right-tilted reform ideas; that coalition broke down under Trump, and the right has since concluded that it doesn't need Dems for anything. 

But Chu is right in a larger sense-- if anybody in the political world would stop asking "How can education be used as an issue to create political advantage" and start asking "How can we help schools with the mission of educating children," we'd get better education policy. As it is, one of the things that makes teaching a dispiriting activity in the 21st century is realizing that public education has no champions among either party, and whenever a politician looks at education, it's not to see how they can help, but how they can smash-and-grab something for their own benefit.